Is there any honor or benefit to slut shaming an adulterous wife?

An examination of the dynamics of slut shaming a wayward wife.

Readership: Red Pilled Men

loose girlfriend

Based on one of my previous posts, there was a discussion at Boxer’s concerning how a man could possibly deal with an adulterous or Alpha-widowed wife, who is spiritually impoverished as a result of her present inclinations, or her previous sexual profligacies, respectively. These posts included,

  1. Sigma Frame: Can You Trust A Dancing Skeleton? (September 21, 2018)
  2. Boxer: How Dare You (November 7, 2018)
  3. Boxer: Patriarchal Thinking (November 13, 2018)

Just to be clear, my previous post (1) was intended to warn readers of the inevitable risks of today’s MMP, and to encourage readers to be both honest and extremely diligent when vetting a potential spouse. I’d like to believe that the overdramatized description might even induce more conscientiousness about the social, marital, and spiritual consequences of sexual promiscuity.

The term “marital fraud” was intended to describe how the spiritual desolation in the wife, which results from dissipating herself (AKA “discovering herself”), invariably remains as a perpetual act of cruelty and disrespect towards her future spouse. It was not meant as a justification for divorce in the de jure sense, although I do understand how it could be interpreted that way, based on certain Biblical passages.

We have two situations covered in Boxer’s two posts, and their related discussions.

  1. A wife who was slutty in the past, and who continues to coit Mr. Danger, even though married.
  2. A wife who was slutty in the past, but who has since settled down and honors her marital vows.

In the last post (3), Boxer covers these two cases respectively as follows.

“If his partner is breaking the [marital] contract, then there are remedies available, which don’t include impotent whining and bitching in public. If his partner is not breaking the contract, then he needs to shut the fuck up and quit whining and bitching in public. Public bitching and whining is unmanly. The time for reading the prospectus is before one invests [in a woman by marrying her].”

But as Honeycomb and Ofelas pointed out in the comments of Boxer’s previous post (2), sexual promiscuities are acts of sin that people rarely come to regret. A guy is blessed if the girl actually regrets her past libidinal indiscretions and confesses it.

There was also some discussion about whether commiserating over marital fraud is “manly”, or honorable, or what not. I agree that these considerations are important, however they are also corrigible, depending on the context of the situation.

If the wife is merely fraudulent, in that she did not confess her true sexual history with her fiancée before marriage, but she conscientiously observes her marital vows and seeks to invest in the relationship, then I believe there is not much a husband can do to remediate the spiritual poverty that she has brought into the marriage. The best he can do is to improve the bonding as much as he can, and guide her towards spiritual growth.

But if the wife continues to revel in her “freedom of choice”, and indulge in glorifying branch swinging, then slut shaming might have a beneficial purpose. So I will outline a few possible outcomes here as follows.

Possible Benefits to Slutty Wife Shaming

I can see a small number of possibly beneficial purposes in publicly shaming an adulterous wife or LTR companion (the first case mentioned above).

  1. In the case where the wife continued to be proud of her carouseling, and at risk of continuing in it, then exposing her sin and shame might serve to goad her towards repentance and reinforce her remorse.
  2. In the case where the wife was nymphotically desperate for cyclical sexual afirmaction, such that it took the form of an adicktion which she couldn’t live without, then publicly shaming her would probably break any remaining trust in hubby. This move would essentially end the relationship, and would push her out to drift in the SMP. However, getting rid of such a woman would probably be a good thing, and she would probably be (relatively) “happier” too, for whatever that is worth. Furthermore (if I am interpreting scripture correctly), this form of discipline is endorsed by St. Paul.

“…deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” ~ 1st Corinthians 5:5 (NKJV)

  1. It would demonstrate to other, i.e. younger, women that they can’t avoid a public scorning for sexual profligacy, even though married. This would be taking one small step back to a Patriarchal social structure, much to the dismay of liberated Feminists. (That in itself may prove to be rather satisfying!)

Risks Inherent in Slutty Wife Shaming

There are also many risks in this, which should not be overlooked.

  1. A man risks violating the sacred trust of his wife, which may lower her temptation threshold. This is a complicated and nuanced matter, which may warrant some further discussion and review.
  2. He opens himself up to gossip and ridicule within his community.
  3. This may have a negative effect on his reputation and social standing, which in turn, may affect the trajectory and stability of his career.
  4. Once other Chads find out that she’s easy, she may face a landslide of sexually tinged male attention. In this case, the man would basically be advertising her services to the community.

Of course, the effectiveness and end results of these purposes would depend on the character of the individual, the social context, and the nature of their peer group as well.

If the peer group / public rejoined the husband’s shaming of the wife by reinforcing the social ostracization, then this may do wonders in bouncing the wayward wife back onto the straight and narrow. We know how women always follow the herd.

On the other hand, if the peer group scorned the husband for exposing his wife’s indiscretions, and labeled him as “cowardly whiner”, then this may serve to empower the wife’s ambitions to up her N count even higher.

In a perfect world, she might also respond by feeling compassion for her husband’s having to endure suffering for her wrongdoing, but this (I believe) is unlikely, and even if she does, it is unclear whether she would turn her behavior around or not.

The bottom line is that if a man has a cockamaniacal wife who is rocking the boat by flirting and F-ing around with other men, then this puts the cucked husband in a very strenuous, defensive, and dishonored position. This continues to be true, although less severe, even if the wife has since forsaken her promiscuous past.

Also, other males would be wiser to offer moral support to a husband who feels he has been defrauded or cucked, rather than to deride him for being an “unmanly” cuckold.

I hope the information offered in this post may help men think through their choices and actions more clearly.

Somewhat inspired by the discussion at Boxer’s, I’m still trying to figure out who gets cucked worse (in theory) – the Tingle-inspiring Alpha who has the quick, soul gratifying F*ck that is so envied by all other men, but then has his progeny condom-bagged or aborted, and thereby loses his reproductive opportunities to the Beta she has children with later on, OR the Beta who fathers children with her, but has to tolerate her guilt-ridden soul emptiness and sexual frigidity stemming from her youthful, widow inducing rendezvous with the Alpha.

It’s a tough call.

But it does seem like wherever Derek goes, he draws criticism… 😉

Related

Advertisements

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Collective Strength, Male Power, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Strategy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Is there any honor or benefit to slut shaming an adulterous wife?

  1. ramman3000 says:

    “But it does seem like wherever Derek goes, he draws criticism…”

    You have no idea how true this is. It’s been that way most of my life.

    “A man risks violating the sacred trust of his wife, which may lower her temptation threshold.”

    When my wife and I exchanged wedding vows, I took her for better or worse. Any history (for either of us) automatically became academic at that point, regardless of its actual reality. It’s essentially a form of mandatory forgiveness. Your vow to your spouse is sacred and nearly absolute. If you can’t deal with this, you shouldn’t get married.

    So let’s say she cheats on you while married and you find out. Shaming her is risky, but I’d argue for a different reason. Divorce is permitted in the case of infidelity, but not remarriage*. You have the right to divorce her and in doing so you might publicly shame her incidentally. But publicly shaming her may harm any chance at reconciliation. Divorce does not sever the spiritual bond between husband and wife: reconciliation should always be the primary goal, and if that is not possible then celibacy until that bond is severed by death.

    If my wife cheated on me, I’d not readily leave her. But if she divorced me, I don’t know what I’d do, in reality, the above rules notwithstanding. It’s difficult to be strong and take such a principled stand.

    Cue the “is remarriage after divorce allowed?” debate that’s existed for hundreds of years.

    Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I’m not sure how long the divorce debate has raged, but I the permanent view of marriage ignores that the “ exception clause” covers “porne,” which is an umbrella term for sexual immorality, distinct from only adultery. They also ignore that God commanded those found in adultery to be executed. There was no discretion in the matter. Additionally, if a husband were suspicious, he could have a special sin offering- if the wife was guilty, she would die. If not, she would become pregnant.

      So to come into the NT and interpret it in a way that ignores God’s wrath against adultery is pretty shady

      Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        Legit. It’s taking the masculine frame of the Almighty and womanizing it down to a free pass for whatever she does while the husband pays the full price. No justice and the Almighty is the God of justice just like He is the god of War etc etc

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “…which is an umbrella term for sexual immorality, distinct from only adultery”

        I favor the explanation by Deep Strength. The “exception” refers to a Hebrew marrying a woman who turns out not to be an expected virgin. Beyond that, there is no permissible divorce and there is no remarriage, for no man can separate that which God has joined, no matter how much you desire it and no matter how much the government approves.

        “Cough cough BETA cough cough cough”

        The only appropriate response for a Christian is separation and (potentially) reunification. This is an unquestionably difficult teaching of Jesus. The human tendency is to do differently, and I admit to having that general failing, mockery notwithstanding.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I obviously disagree, and may post on the matter further a long time from now, but Ill post some of my disagreements below. In short, I believe that a divorce on account of adultery is permissible: the innocent spouse may remarry, and the spouse who committed adultery is forbidden from ever marrying again. I dont see any scriptural basis to get more lenient than that. The question is how to interpret the “exception clause,” which is a question of hermeneutics. To answer that question, one must know what the OT picture of marriage was, and how God viewed it.

        I understand the Betrothal position, which permits the dissolution of a marriage based on being defrauded. That is a complicated matter, because the issue being punished isnt the sexual purity, but creating a marriage on the foundation of fraud (in a system where dowry’s/bride prices were paid).

        Another reason I would object to that hermeneutic is that it creates an argument that certain teachings or commands of Christ are audience specific, or that an entire book of the Gospel was only intended for one audience. This is the logic and reasoning used to discount headcoverings in one half of a chapter of 1 Corinthians 11. The problem, of course, is that you cant apply that same logic to the latter half of the chapter on communion. (overall, it is a matter referred to as internal consistency).

        As to “no man separate,” I believe it is in response to the illegitimate divorce system set up at that time period, where divorces were given for arbitrary reasons (not being a good cook is one of them). There was also a perversion of the law: notice how the pharisees wanted to stone only the woman. The law commanded the man to be put to death as well.

        That raises another point: God commanded adultery to be punished by death. That is how serious the sin was. It was not open to discretion or choice- it was something that had to be done.

        When Paul spoke in his epistles, he discussed how an arbitrary divorce created a adultery- when a divorced spouse remarried, they would be committing adultery, causing their new spouse to commit adultery, etc. Paul was not speaking in regards to spouses who divorced on account of adultery.

        I would say that allowing for divorce on that ground, in the New Testament Church era, where gentiles were grafted into the church body, doesn’t contradict scripture in anyway. When the church was opened up to gentiles/non-jews, Jewish criminal law couldn’t be applied anyways, especially in the Roman system.

        My last point would be the practical affect. When a man is cheated on, it crushes his soul. It takes years to recover from, if you have been married for a long time, etc. I cannot imagine how a man could ever recover from adultery when he still remains in the household with the perpetrator. I cannot see how God would reverse numerous teachings and commands on adultery in the course of one verse, and in so doing lessen the weight of adultery.

        Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      Cough cough BETA cough cough cough

      Like

  2. Lexet Blog says:

    When Paul wrote that a woman who has lived (been) with another man in marriage is to be called an adulteress, there was no temporal limitation

    Like

  3. Ame says:

    sexual promiscuities are acts of sin that people rarely come to regret.

    i would agree based on the women i’ve known over the years who were promiscuous and/or unfaithful.

    i knew a girl in college who claimed to be very promiscuous. i asked her once if it bothered her when she sat in church every sunday, and she said that no, it didn’t bother her b/c it wasn’t any different than any other sin.

    women are masterful at justification.

    it is rare to encounter true repentance.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Domingo Montoya says:

    Re the hypothetical dilemma which of the (arche?)types gets theoretically ‘cucked’ worse:
    Firstly I tend to believe (have nothing to back it up with though, except some anecdotal cases) that women rarely abort (perceived) alpha’s spawn.
    Then the alpha can have children at any point later in time, while the beta’s chance to ever get the ‘whole’ of the woman, supposing she’s an alpha widow proper, is very limited. Also, which I’ve seen a few times, women tend (supposing the children are biologically the husband’s) to try to project their more alpha past lovers’ ‘image’ onto their sons, or – similar, but from different perspective – the idea of having sons who would be like the beta husband doesn’t really sit well with women, they’d much rather prefer to have sons who would be like the past alpha(s), (but the husband is of course a convenient prop, who will serve the purpose of her having her princess day and status of a married woman and a family..) On one hand it biologically makes sense, but upon him eventually realizing it, can’t imagine much that could be more humiliating to the husband than this kind of revelation (except hardcore stuff like real cuckoldry, or explicit comparing of penis size, of quality of sexual experience etc of course).
    So really brutal vetting prior to making a commitment is really crucial.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. h0neyc0mb says:

    But it does seem like wherever Derek goes, he draws criticism… 😉

    heh

    He’s a big boy .. and it’s more like constructive feedback .. HEH!

    honeycomb
    (now h0neyc0mb in wordpress)
    Someone took my screen name and this is the best I could do.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s